Looking ahead, part two

[bill watson]

Brother Phil has asked a fine question about 2007 events. Let me get a parallel, noncompeting, complementary thread going.

In 2007, what are you going to be looking for from an event? What will get you off the sofa? Why are you doing this?

Believe me, everybody involved in helping to put on events can use this information. And we need to learn this about each other.

[flattop32355]

In 2007, what are you going to be looking for from an event? What will get you off the sofa? Why are you doing this?

Let's answer the last one first: I do it because I want to. I like doing it, and it gets me away from the "ordinary". Also, it's an activity my son and I can share. It's been interesting watching him grow, in age, height, knowledge and maturity for the past three years. He's no longer the boy that started out in this hobby, but a blossoming young man. Reenacting has helped him do that.

The other two kinda go together for me:
I want a well run event, with clear and concise standards that are upheld, realistic scenarios, and officers who know what they're doing.
I want the event centered upon the reenactors, because if you do that, all the other things fall into place properly.
I want to experience some new things, not necessarily grand, bold ones, but realistic one.
I want the force ratios to be relatively realistic; no 10 Reb/1 Fed just because the event is south of the Mason-Dixon Line, or visa versa if north of it.
I want the chance to interact with the civilian reeanctors occasionally. The armies didn't operate in a vacuum; there were people most everywhere they went.
I want the event to teach me something I didn't know before. How long is a real company sized front? Can you really do a battalion wheel? What's it like to get captured (even if you know it ain't real)? Many, many other things...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Jubilo]

Dear Captain Bill ,

Having a keen interest in battles , I look towards events that can possibly "reenact " a battle . I have seen some exceptional recreations at portions of Gettysburg , Antietam , Franklin , Perryville , Corinth , et . al . It seems at national events usually one scenario out of three or four will gel perfectly while the others do not for a variety of reasons .
Having an event on the actual battlefield , a battle scenario featuring works ( which focuses the action and limits scenario busting ), or a battle I have never reenacted are all draws for me. I have enjoyed the Monocacy / Assault on Washington , the '06 First Bull Run , Perryville (every year and not just the "national event' ) , and the Battle of Selma for the previously stated reasons . I have never attended New Market , which is to me one of the most interesting battles of the war and perhaps the oldest reenactment but which seems to generate much negative opinion . I look forward to some day reenacting Brice's Crossroads , Trevilian Station , Wilson's Creek , Pea Ridge and the Crater . The "Eastern" versus "Western " , reenactment bias I find boring and counter-productive . History should be the final arbiter.
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[Henry_Rifle]

All I want is truth in advertising.

[GrumpyDave]

I'd like communication from event organizers. By that I mean when I ask a question via e-mail and include my phone # I actually get a response. And, I can pass on good (or any) information to (until November) my batallion unit contacts for distribution. I think that's fair and resonable.

[bulletsponge]

If doing Signal corps, I'd prefer not to be chasing horses' patooties all over creation instead of signaling. If bugling, I'd prefer not to be used as a runner. And it would be nice if it wouldn't interfere with a particular tractor show I missed this year...

[bill watson]

John, you want to do the things appropriate to the impression. Grumpy Dave wants better pre-event communication and a responsive event hierarchy. Jubilous Dave wants realistic battles. Jack wants an accurate description of the event. Bernie has a whole list, all doable, although getting officers who know what they are doing stands out as something most events don't actually spell out as a requirement or offer any means to make happen.
So far, nobody wants anything ridiculous. Gee, reasonable people.

[FWL]

John, you want to do the things appropriate to the impression. Grumpy Dave wants better pre-event communication and a responsive event hierarchy. Jubilous Dave wants realistic battles. Jack wants an accurate description of the event. Bernie has a whole list, all doable, although getting officers who know what they are doing stands out as something most events don't actually spell out as a requirement or offer any means to make happen.
So far, nobody wants anything ridiculous. Gee, reasonable people.

Bill as I progress in the progressive and/or authentic hobby this what I like to see in order of importance

1) original ground-reenacting marches or battles on original ground has become more important than anything-usually this includes a preservation component.
2) authenticity standards and their enforcement including inspections
3) marches- need to move don't like static situations
4) period food and cooking
5) drill- like it and want more of it-for good drill you need good officers
6) first person
7) period civilian interaction
good battles- still like to burn some powder and like authentic battles

regards

[Linda Trent]

Bill,

here's my list:

1) being able to have the faith that the organizers and/or other participants will follow through with the event. This year there has not been one event I've attended, or planned to attend, that hasn't been screwed around with either by the organizer or by participants.
2) authenticity standards and their enforcement including inspections
3) first person action and interaction
4) period appropriate military interaction, on occasion.

Linda.

[bill watson]

1) being able to have the faith that the organizers and/or other participants will follow through with the event. This year there has not been one event I've attended, or planned to attend, that hasn't been screwed around with either by the organizer or by participants.
Linda.

Not looking to give any particular event a bad name, but can you give some hypothetical examples of what "screwed around with" means?

And I find it interesting you are including participants as a source of "screwing around with" as well. Do you mean not coming with the attitude that they have to help make it "work" for everyone? Or something quite literal like ignoring the plan? (Whatever "the plan" was...)